Oops there it is ! With the testimony of the three whistle blowers, some in the mainstream media finally are admitting things like “... the tragic events that unfolded last year in Benghazi are ... worthy of serious investigation...”; and/or that there are “... very serious issues associated with protecting our diplomats and our interests overseas...,” which need to be looked into
Yesterday and today, members of the mainstream media had to work overtime to distract and deceive their print-readers, TV-watchers and computer-searchers from the big news of the testimony of the three State Department whistle-blowers that came in and appeared before the Oversight Committee yesterday. What makes that fact especially interesting is that a couple of other news stories had apparently stolen the thunder from yesterday’s congressional hearing — the Jodi Arias “Guilty” verdict, and the kidnapping and rape charges against Ariel Castro in the case of the three imprisoned Cleveland women.
According to one of the most heavily-credentialed members of the MSM, “Rep. Darrell Issa must be ruing his bad luck. The hearing he carefully orchestrated to pick at the scab of Benghazi was stepped on by the verdict in the Jodi Arias murder trial and by the story of three women held captive and brutalized for a decade in Cleveland. He was out-sensationalized and out-tawdried this week despite his own best efforts and those of his committee colleagues and staff members.” (See “Benghazi hearing's real target: Clinton in 2016 ” by David Rothkopf, 5/9/13, Special to CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/09/opinion/rothkopf-benghazi-hearing/index.html]). Of course even David Rothkopf had to admit that all the circumstances of Benghazi do raise very serious issues associated with protecting our diplomats and our interests overseas; and that the tragic events in Benghazi are. worthy of serious investigation. Rothkopf writes regularly for CNN.com and is the CEO and editor-at-large for the publishers of Foreign Policy magazine, and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
A compelling report of the substantive testimony at the Congressional Oversight Committee appeared in an unlikely place – Politico – which focused on the testimonial description of the events on or about 9/11/12 and allowed the words of the witnesses to convey the importance of what went on: nine months ago, in Benghazi and Tripoli, and at various command centers; and yesterday, in the congressional hearing room ( See “Benghazi hearing: State officials get emotional” by Ginger Gibson, 5/8/13, Politico [http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/benghazi-hearing-house-oversight-committee-91066.html]). The main talking points of the Democrats were presented in a straightforward manner in the final segment of the article along with the quoted remarks of the Ranking Member of the Committee, Elijah Cummings.
get a look at: “Hillary’s Benghazi ‘What Difference Does It Make Remix’ ” on YouTube by ODDLAMPS.COM @http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B7dZReimPI
ReplyDeleteremix featuring Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice doing an annoying but catchy tune
it is a simple concept for anybody worried about any Hillary 2016 run
it goes like this
“What difference does it make - four dead Americans - offensive video”
BACKFILL: The “Hardball with Chris Matthews” show for 5/9/13 focused on Hillary’s role in the Benghazi tragedy and how the Republicans have targeted her. (See Matthews Show Transcript, 5/9/13 [http://livedash.ark.com/transcript/hardball_
ReplyDeletewith_chris_matthews/52/MSNBC/Thursday_May_9_2013/646813/]).
Here’s how Chris Matthews opened the show’s segment about the Congressional Benghazi Hearings:
Chris Matthews: “Will Benghazi, the issue, dog Hillary Clinton if and when she runs for president in 2016? *** If yesterday's congressional hearing into the attacks was any indication, republicans aren't going to let go of the issue. *** They say the white house has tried to block the truth from coming out, that's the Obama White House. *** The former Secretary of State helped them do it. *** That's what they say. *** The focus seems mostly shifted, by the way, to Clinton now, not Obama. *** Hillary knew and what she did or didn't do during and after the attacks. *** For example, we now know that Clinton phoned the embassy in Tripoli the night of the attacks and spoke with the DCM, deputy chief of mission at the time, Gregory Hicks. *** Hicks also said Clinton's Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, tried to intimidate him after he spoke congressman, a republican, about the attacks without a state department lawyer being present. *** My question today, what kind of a picture does this all add up to? *** Where are we headed with this?”
Matthews then introduced Lisa Myers of NBC News and she confirmed that important points had been raised about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s direct involvement in the Benghazi fiasco on the night of 9/11/12; most notably a telephone call between Secretary Clinton and Tuesday’s Congressional witness Gregory Hicks that occurred on the night of the attack. Furthermore, according to Myers. “I think it's the Cheryl Mills involvement in all this. There is no one closer. Let's say, there are few people closer to Hillary Clinton than Cheryl Mills.... [W]e learned the reason Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi. That's because Secretary Clinton ... wanted to be able to announce there would be a permanent diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.... They have established that Hillary Clinton was involved in operations. That she was calling during the time after the first attack. And before they knew what had happened to Ambassador Stevens, she was in a position of being the top officer involved in that matter, as Secretary of State.”
UPDATE: LIBERAL MEDIA STARTS TO HAMMER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OVER BENGHAZI
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Huffington Post, “WASHINGTON -- Political considerations influenced the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the deadly Sept. 11 assault in Benghazi, Libya, with State Department and other senior administration officials asking that references to terror groups and prior warnings be deleted, according to department emails. ***
The latest disclosures Friday raised new questions about whether the Obama administration tried to play down any terrorist factor in the attack on a diplomatic compound just weeks before the November presidential election....” (See “Benghazi Emails: State Department Sought To Change Libya Talking Points” by Donna Cassata and Julie Pace, 5/10/13
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/benghazi-emails-state-department_n_3256859.html]).
AND EVEN >>> THE NEW YORK TIMES <<< IS STARTING TO GET IT AND REPORT ON IT !!!
According to a report in the NYT, “A long-simmering dispute over the White House’s account of the deadly assault on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, flared up on Friday, with a disclosure of e-mails that show the White House was more deeply involved in revising talking points about the attack than officials have previously acknowledged.... The e-mails — initially disclosed in a report last month by House Republicans that was expanded on by The Weekly Standard, the conservative magazine, and on Friday in further detail by ABC News — had the White House scrambling to provide an explanation.” (See “Benghazi E-Mails Put White House on the Defensive” by Mark Landler, 5/10/13, NY Times
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/us/politics/benghazi-e-mails-put-white-house-on-the-defensive.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]).
Timesman Landler then described yesterday’s White House response to those disclosures, as follows: “Early in the afternoon, it [the White House] summoned reporters for a briefing by legal and political advisers who, under the ground rules, could not be identified. In that session, the White House asserted that the talking points were not modified for political reasons and noted that they had originally been prepared at the request of Congress. They said frequent, even exhaustive revision of talking points was routine at the White House....”
After that in camera briefing, things were no longer under such restrictive ground rules, and the Times report noted that “[W]hen the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, arrived for his on-camera briefing later in the day, he was questioned repeatedly on whether he or the administration deliberately misled reporters last fall about the changes in the talking points....”
In conclusion, Mark Landler’s report said this: “The major changes in the talking points came after a White House meeting on Sept. 15, the day before Ms. Rice used them in her appearance on five Sunday news shows, but a former official said that the State Department was not aware during the drafting process that she would be using them for her TV appearances."
UPDATE: MSNBC the Ed Show.... It's baaack ! ! ! ? ? ?
ReplyDeleteEd Shultz said that "all the talking head shows" had scheduled Benghazi segments this Sunday "just to distract the people some more..."
Yuh gotta love it when it comes around this way, 'cause it don't come around this way that often.
UPDATE: IS REPORTING ON BENGHAZI A PROBLEM AT CBS NEWS BECAUSE IT”S FAMILY BUSINESS ?
ReplyDeleteDoes incestuous relationship with Obama White House explain why CBS News can’t be counted upon to properly cover Benghazi ?
“From the beginning, [Sharyl] Attkisson has been one of the few mainstream journalists willing to dig into the September 11 [2012] terror attack in Libya, and the Administration's response to it. Fearing the story might lead exactly where it did yesterday with Jonathan Karl's bombshell report, the mainstream media has poured most if its energy into wishing the story away or playing Palace Guard for the White House. *** Attkisson's dogged pursuit of the truth has not only pitted her against a media desperate to protect Obama, but also, apparently, against her bosses at CBS News, one of whom is the brother of a top Obama official.” (See “CBS NEWS PRESIDENT BROTHER OF OBAMA NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIAL; WILL HE OUST BENGHAZI REPORTER SHARYL ATTKISSON?” by John Nolte, 5/11/13 [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/11/Brother-top-Obama-Offical-Oust-Sharyl-Attkisson]).
Neither the White House nor CBS News are responding a report that the brother of a top Obama administration official, who had a hand in changing the Benghazi “talking points,” is also the president of CBS News. Furthermore, the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively (See “Top Obama official’s brother is president of CBS News, may drop reporter over Benghazi coverage” by Patrick Howley, 5/11/13, Daily Caller [http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/11/top-obama-officials-brother-is-president-of-cbs-news-may-drop-reporter-over-benghazi-coverage/#ixzz2T3VuM3lN]).
According to Patrick Howley of the Daily Caller, it’s been revealed that “President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012.” And “ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes... called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.”
CBS reporter Sharyl Attkinson has been trying to get to bottom of the Benghazi“talking points” controversy since the fall of 2012, and several of her Benghazi reports by have been spiked since the events of 9/11/12. “Network sources” have confirmed that “CBS executives feel Attkisson’s Benghazi coverage is bordering on advocacy....” and as a result “...Sharyl Attkisson ‘can’t get some of her stories on the air’.” Furthermore, CBS and Attkinson reportedly are in negotiations for her departure from the network prior to the expiration of her contract.
UPDATE: NEW YORK TIMES — MAUREEN DOWD
ReplyDelete“The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.”
Op Ed — “When Myths Collide in the Capital.” 5/12/13
Some members of the liberal establishment mainstream media have woken up to Benghazi and its aftermath — they are not amused that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Obama Administration have put them in this fix. Today veteran NY Times Op Ed columnist Maureen Dowd weighed in with her column entitled “When Myths Collide in the Capital” [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=0]. It is a scorcher for both President Barack Obama and for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Everybody needs to read this column because of the following: a) the Maureen Dowd column is in and of itself a “news” item, ie., the column is being reported upon as news by other media, right and left; b) it is going to be one of the hallmarks of liberal establishment critique of the Obama-Clinton team concerning the entire Benghazi fiasco; and c) other than a few obligatory shots at the GOP for politicizing and grandstanding, Maureen Dowd does a very good snapshot analysis of what went wrong in Benghazi and why it went wrong, also it gives the who, what and why of the problematic aftermath of 9/11/12, and why it all matters going forward.
This pronouncement by Ms. Dowd maybe the quote of the day, it’s certainly HER quote of the day: “The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.”
I guess she'll come up with something equally quotable about the administration's behavior after the attack once everything that it did has been revealed.